If You Buy Diablo 3, You're Contributing to the Worsening of PC Gaming

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If there is an issue it's people buying games just because of the name. And this extends beyond doing something bad for PC gaming.

I disagree: it reflects the health and worth of the industry. For all that we complain about a lack of innovation in the industry, and for all the scepticism and hostility with which the idea of games as something other than mindless diversions is received in certain quarters, the fact is that one game is not easily substituted for another. If I want to play Modern Warfare 3 then I want to play Modern Warfare-fucking 3, not Battlefield 3 or any of the other games that are at least superficially similar to it. That publishers are able to exploit their customers to this degree - successfully - is another arrow in the quiver demonstrating that games are more art than product. Toothbrushes can be easily substituted for one another, the Mona Lisa cannot.

Guys, in 5 years max offline games on PC probably won't exist anymore. Blame pirates for what is happening and not the companies that aren't "greedy" but need to pay the bills.

Princess Leia: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ..."

Applies just as well to the games industry. I'm frankly astonished that these fools have finally managed to discover (by accident, no doubt) that allowing people to play your game for free is potentially the most lucrative business model. Next they'll consider the idea of broadcasting television and radio for free. Ahaha.

Well it's a video game forum innit, and we all know that gaming, as a subculture, is the worst for trivialising the word rape: "I totally raped him at COD" or "that game totally raped me" or such. And people using that as slang are not working off the 'despoil' definition, they're using a shocking word initially in order to shock, and then because they always have done.

That's because it's been used in that way since it entered the language. The legal definition only came in in the 19th century thanks to Victorian sensibilities; and even then it's held the original definition (to sieze by force) amongst the lower classes. Being oblivious to it's actual meaning and usage however does make some sheep rustling reports unintentionally hilarious.

I'm not a fan of this approach but I can't really bring myself to care too strongly about it. There will be other games. If the market doesn't want these things then there will be a large enough dip in sales to for Blizzard to change things.

That's because it's been used in that way since it entered the language. The legal definition only came in in the 19th century thanks to Victorian sensibilities; and even then it's held the original definition (to sieze by force) amongst the lower classes. Being oblivious to it's actual meaning and usage however does make some sheep rustling reports unintentionally hilarious.

That's because it's been used in that way since it entered the language. The legal definition only came in in the 19th century thanks to Victorian sensibilities; and even then it's held the original definition (to sieze by force) amongst the lower classes. Being oblivious to it's actual meaning and usage however does make some sheep rustling reports unintentionally hilarious.

To put it another way, even considering his "I'm so clever" defense, R-F is guilty of being tonedeaf.

To be on-topic, however, Acti-Blizzard is evil and I'm surprised people are still shocked by this fact.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Here is the thing though: I did think about it and it is the most appropriate word. Corruption was too fantasy to use, murder wasn't accurate, exploitation is close but not quite there and so it's the most accurate and appropriate word. Please, find me a more appropriate word.

Abuse. Same thing, but with the volume turned down. And more commonly used outside of sexual situations.

So what bit are we particularly annoyed with then? The DRM, the modding or the item store?

That's because it's been used in that way since it entered the language. The legal definition only came in in the 19th century thanks to Victorian sensibilities; and even then it's held the original definition (to sieze by force) amongst the lower classes. Being oblivious to it's actual meaning and usage however does make some sheep rustling reports unintentionally hilarious.

No, I'm entirely aware of what it originally meant, my point is that people using it in the fashion I'm describing ie. "I totally raped him at COD" are not using it in that original fashion. Most aren't even aware of that definition, they're using it to draw an over-the-top comparison of their situation with forced sexual intercourse in order to create emphasis.

Now, are they also, quite accidentally, using the correct word without actually knowing it? Yes. So it's grammatically correct. But that's stripping the statement of any sort of intent which frankly isn't helpful. The current casual use of 'rape' does not stem from that original definition, and hasn't always existed. It's use colloquially over the past few years is something that has become more and more commonplace and is derived from the sexual meaning of the word, not the traditional one.

To go back to the OP, if we believe him he thought about it and decided that the traditional definition was the right word for the job and wanted to use it, in which case he should have been aware of the context of the discussion - a gaming forum - a venue known for its casual use of the term and thought twice about it.

But why R-F should take exception to being labelled a detective is as yet inexplicable.

please stay on topic. and not spam a thread with irrelevant discussion.

About the shop.

its not a problem imo as like many already said. it takes over what already had happened with d2. ebaying the goods for real money. In that regards I believe it is a correct thing to do for blizzard to assume better control over the whole deal.

As i never played d2 MP i have a question. In multiplayer you could farm for the equipment in exactly the same way as if you were playing single player?

As for the game itself -- I do agree that the policies are silly, but am not sure if they are silly enough to keep me from buying it if I wanted it. But I don't want to play Diablo 3 anyhow, so I haven't had to wrestle with the question. o_O

So what bit are we particularly annoyed with then? The DRM, the modding or the item store?

I'm mostly interested in seeing how far AAA games can sink before it kills the fun for most people.

The RMT is curious, though. This is, AFAIK, the first time anything like it has happened in a non-F2P game. Officially endorsed gold farming. I think it's going to be problematic, to say the least.

Don't know if it'll last. Just wait until the first sweatshop stories break; at least with WoW, they weren't taking a cut. It's going to look really, really bad, and they're going to have to answer some rather uncomfortable questions from journalists about a fucking videogame and the harm it's encouraging and profiting from.

We're pretty much only missing the snide condescension and poor analogies from a PR representative or - better yet - the CEO.

Well I see the store as a way of profiting off something that's inevitable anyway (and this is a primarily a single-player/party v monsters thing isn't it? PvP isn't a huge focus so buying stuff isn't such a big deal?)

The DRM is annoying and is being done for reasons of piracy, and I wish they'd just admit that as if they're truly running enough stuff server-side to make piracy very difficult (eg. if monster AI is done server-side) then it sort of makes sense. If they're just stopping the game launching when you're not online it's a lot more annoying. In other words, I can kind of put up with this sort of DRM if it's actually going to stop piracy (unlike with Ubi's system).

The mods thing, to me, points to a plan to get this on consoles and have the two versions work together. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.

And, yeah, the issue is people going "I LOVE BLIZZARD!" and eating the games up. It's the same with BioWare. People defend Dragon Age 2's flaws with great fury, but would they even be doing that if it wasn't a BioWare game? If it was made by some little Ukrainian developer? I seriously doubt it.

It'd go one way or the other. Let's not forget there are a good names of utterly broken games by smaller developers that get let off the hook on the basis of (essentially) good intentions. It goes both ways. And (this is actually a different thing, so I won't dwell on it long) that sort of demeans smaller developers to be honest. When a game on that sort of budget gets the "Well it's sort of broken and we'd never forgive a big studio for it but we love it because they're spunky!" it's basically "Well we couldn't expect them to make a polished product eh? The little scamps."

I'd be interested to know how many people simply don't/won't keep up with game news before release and are then disappointed when they discover.... something (not being able to play offline, for example) but because they're not going on forums, etc. don't voice their opinion. And probably make the same mistake again in future.

Originally Posted by Rii

I disagree: it reflects the health and worth of the industry. For all that we complain about a lack of innovation in the industry, and for all the scepticism and hostility with which the idea of games as something other than mindless diversions is received in certain quarters, the fact is that one game is not easily substituted for another. If I want to play Modern Warfare 3 then I want to play Modern Warfare-fucking 3, not Battlefield 3 or any of the other games that are at least superficially similar to it. That publishers are able to exploit their customers to this degree - successfully - is another arrow in the quiver demonstrating that games are more art than product. Toothbrushes can be easily substituted for one another, the Mona Lisa cannot.

I think you misunderstood me (or I'm misunderstanding you.) My issue isn't that a game may be perceived as a money-driven sequel or lacking innovation or any of those things. And I don't have a single qualm with developers continuing/milking (as a given gamer sees fit) a series either.

My point is that if it was announced that Modern Warfare 3 was announced to be a very different kind of game it'd probably still sell shitloads purely because some people wouldn't have been paying any attention and are buying a name not a game. It happens everywhere, and in gaming it's no different. And it arguably has detrimental effects on what games get made. How many times do we see one series get continually worse purely because they know it'll sell? They've got mortgages to pay and food to buy, and if they're in it for the business reasons fair play to them. But it still bugs me that people keep throwing money at them and giving them no reason to care about making a better game. Not flecking-the-screen-with-spittle-while-I-rage, just annoyed.

I'm not concerned by the motivations of a developer (within reason).

A brave heart and a courteous tongue. They shall carry thee far through the jungle, manling.

Well I see the store as a way of profiting off something that's inevitable anyway (and this is a primarily a single-player/party v monsters thing isn't it? PvP isn't a huge focus so buying stuff isn't such a big deal?)

The DRM is annoying and is being done for reasons of piracy, and I wish they'd just admit that as if they're truly running enough stuff server-side to make piracy very difficult (eg. if monster AI is done server-side) then it sort of makes sense. If they're just stopping the game launching when you're not online it's a lot more annoying. In other words, I can kind of put up with this sort of DRM if it's actually going to stop piracy (unlike with Ubi's system).

The mods thing, to me, points to a plan to get this on consoles and have the two versions work together. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.

Of course DRM is 'justified' as anti-pirate. Otherwise it's just a "fuck you" to legitimate consumers, pirates being the only ones unaffected by DRM. It's still intrusive and wrong. It was unwanted in Ubisoft games, and it's unwanted in Blizzard games.

The 'justification' for the always-on DRM is that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game and Diablo 2 was plagued by hacks. The 'justification' for no mods is that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game and Diablo 2 was plagued by hacks. Either way, guess who loses? The majority who play only single player, and the modding community - PC gamers, all.

Item shops are a P2W model. Screw that.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen